Author
Topic: Most Utopian Society In Your Opinion In The Following Specifications (Read 9487 times)

I don't know which thread this would categorize under if at all on this site, but still wanted to pose the question!

Another SF question, YET AGAIN. I would like to know other's opinions on specific social aspects.

Background of the social class: This society is comprised of Espers, within my universe they are the most intellectual race. Having esp like abilities, (read some of my earlier posts to get a feel for them if you would like) they base most of their decisions on logic, therefore I want a unanimous symbiotic relation within their community.

This society needs:

A complete social equality in voting, speaking, and finance.

All residents may have differing difficulty of jobs, but in essence get paid the same (depending on skill set and necessity).

Biokinetic's(Espers that have the ability to manipulate cellular activity in all biological aspects) act as a hospital, which in essence causes no disease.

Energy is clean and sustained.

A select group of extremely intelligent espers go through mass political petitions that govern laws within a logical fair manner. (Mainly enforced by a specific individual that is completely devoted to duty).

Justice is given out within a logical methodical manner where the death penalty is given to anyone who is in enforcement of destroying their specific laws.

I know it sounds a bit far fetched and extreme, but what is your input on the matter; I would like negative and positive opinions on the matter. Ask questions about the society that might cause collapse and/or that I have missed, and slowly evolve this fantasy society broadening its perimeters.

There is a long history of Utopias in fiction, I suppose dating all the way back to Adam and Eve, and undoubtedly predating them as most of the Biblical stories are based on other preexisting religious texts.

One of the most common themes is that there is a fine line between utopias and dystopias. While something may make the majority of people happy, there are always a few that just don't fit in. And this creates conflict which pushes the story forward.

A few notes about communism/socialism. In many senses, the world can feed everyone, so there is no reason for anybody to go hungry. However, there are many ills from the dissociation of wages from work. If one must sacrifice something to "get ahead", and there is no benefit from doing so, then there is no motivation to be a great entrepreneur or inventor, for example.

And, there is always a little tension in a society where everyone is equal, just some people are a little more equal than others, to take an idea from Orwell.

If you consider the Star Trek world, nobody gets paid, and everyone is happy. Yet, there are many reasons why such a society would eventually collapse.

As far as politicians. Most politicians are very eloquent speakers. But, also very manipulative. They are not necessarily the smartest individuals. The best ones surround themselves with competent advisors. Even so, neither the politicians, nor their advisers may truly understand cutting edge research, for example.

I've always thought that a sufficiently advanced society would operate without a government or politics and the interactions within would be governed by each members knowledge of what is required for the greater good.

Another idea was explored by Frank Herbert in "God Emperor of Dune" where an entire galaxy was kept in line by a single (man? worm?) who had altered himself to live for thousands of years in order to conduct his "enforced peace".

I've always thought that a sufficiently advanced society would operate without a government or politics and the interactions within would be governed by each members knowledge of what is required for the greater good.

Another idea was explored by Frank Herbert in "God Emperor of Dune" where an entire galaxy was kept in line by a single (man? worm?) who had altered himself to live for thousands of years in order to conduct his "enforced peace".

Interesting; I was thinking about a sort of unanimous democracy, where through technology you were instantly able to share around mass information. So, without crime or laws (and if there were any crime it would be decided upon by the masses). Self governing within all environments, a society built upon science as a foundation. Research given out freely and funding unanimously supported (be it materials or money, but in this sort of society there would be no need for mundane cash).

Is that what you were getting at and is there a name for this kind of society?

On Clifford's note:

I understand where you are coming from, "Freedom of choice is the main attribution to conflict." If a person has a set of guidelines or principles then that is their law, and if anyone is against those principles then they are labeled as deviants (evil). Whole heartarted selfless action is impossible in our reality, and that is the main contributor of socialism as a fantasy.

What I'm wondering is what you think about a society built on science would offer/grow as, and also it's possible downfalls.

We can become very dangerous to each other, especially if we allow other to make our decisions, and we do that. There are several psychology experiments, the classic one being the one where guys and gals was told to crank up the electricity each time a person answered wrong on a test question, they becoming instant Teachers. The test subjects faked it naturally but the persons cranking up the electricity assumed it to be real. It was found that they turned to the 'experimenter' several times asking if they should continue, and when the experimenter insisted on it, a majority did. Another point of this experiment was that the voltage was marked out, with the last being, if I remember rightly 450 volt, marked as 'Dangerous'.

Another sweet test involves two threads of different length. All people in the room except one, not knowing about the conspiracy, lies that the the threads hanging are of equal length, although one is shorter. A majority of the people will adapt to the group, believing that they are correct. You can test that one, but have to make it very serious, and 'scientific'.

A third involves Skinner, a famous behaviorist, repainting a factory wanting to see if productivity goes up. and it did. He used to close his kid into a box every time she lost her temper, as I understands it, finding it to make wonders for her temperament. That one isn't about people adapting to orders but to change though, but what one can notice is that it doesn't seem to matter what the change is.==

Ahh, now i remember the third one I originally was thinking of before remembering that bast** Skinner.

it's about you looking at a computer screen, depicting a photo. You stare at it in a little room, let's say five minutes, before getting bored, possibly feeling something amiss but without knowing why. then the researcher asks you if you noticed anything strange, upon which you answer 'no' :)

Well, that photo changed each time you blinked, a buss disappearing, a tree moving, etc. But you never noticed. And that is a general truth, you won't notice it.

People are people, we're not cruel one to one, well, most of us isn't, although you will always find exceptions. And those choosing themselves as 'leaders' are seldom the ones fitting the office, as is a old maxim.==

Then you can look at any treatment of mentally ill, to see the same sort of behavior as described at first, and the last too, as a guess. Although it was worse earlier, you will still see it coming back, now and then, in our modern society. A good society is one where people think for themselves, and have some self-criticism, as I expect :) But that's about the hardest thing one can do, it's much easier to follow orders.

An interesting response yor_on, I've taken Psychology 1010 last semester and am currently in Sociology 1010 in this semester.

We have gone over Skinner and a multiple of other researchers (I believe the conclusion to the factory experiment was that people act differently under known study, than when unaware).

I, however, am trying to come up with a logical society that is completely based on scientific discovery.

How I see it is that you have a mass populous that all participate in voting by means of a cellular like device that is encoded with biometric signatures to avoid fraud (although, there are many ways around biometric, is there anything more definite that comes to your mines?). Laws and regulations are proposed by elected leaders, but is passed by the people.

Imagine just going about your research for the day and you get a sudden blip on your phone asking about a law. All the major points are displayed for easy overview and a simple slide for acceptance or denial.

As I have stated that this society functions as a whole to better their surroundings, it only takes a small percentile of ones time to do a mass productive activity (work) while the entire nation is thinking the exact same way (at least in my mind).______________________________________________________________________________________

On notes about research, I have studied a multitude of things for my BS degree, I remember:

I'm trying to get a third point of view on this idea though, it isn't like this kind of society has ever been within our society (at least in a mass populous scale). We have the technology to give every single person in our country the ability to vote on a topic with the slide of a touch screen icon, but we still don't have it...I wonder why

You do understand that such a society will be stamped as 'untrustworthy' by all other states using representative democracy? 'We can't trust them to do WHAT IS RIGHT' :)

people love to go to the back room to make those important decisions :) After all, that must be the 'true sign of leadership'. 'Democracy is a flawed system' I think Churchill said once, well knowing what he was talking about, 'but it is still the best system there is.' And now you want to lift it a notch huh :) A democracy in where we vote, all of us, directly. You will need to make some rotation for comities etc, basing it maybe on geographical and age, finding that representative mix for the people informing us other on what we need to decide on. Also maybe a system making it possible for the common man not to be forced to read information, or viewing some comities presentation, each and every day of his life, before deciding 'yes' or 'no'. You can't expect people to constantly want to vote, especially if there are no direct positive reinforcements for doing it, as getting 'famous' in some way for example. And you need to take a look at this place educational system too. The schools should be fun for all.

It should be decided from demographics I think, using statistics to create a 'merry go round' of time-limited comities and direct voter.

But I better warn you, this will lead to war ::))

==I'm not discussing totalitarian states for a reason.The are by (my) definition unsound environments for 'the common man'. Although you may find a lot of happy costumers there too, depending on rule(r), freedom of thought and action will still be missing.

I'm presuming that you want a 'static hierarchy' to be non existent, as far as possible here? A bureaucracy of some sort will still be needed though. And yes, we're of a same mind there Voxx. I've also wondered why we don't use the technology as we could. One reason might be hierarchy of different types, money and 'power'. We all enjoy feeling special, don't we? :) And of course, any one, or thing, threatening that position will then be perceived as a threat. Take a look of global warming, what it proposes as remedies are a threat, to your wallet, and material comfort :) Not to mention,to various global industries, and following that, politics.

Yor_on, you do bring up some valid points; let me address them as followed.

I understand where you are coming from within a 'modern' real world point of view; after all, we as a species thrive off of personal happiness (which in most cases involves lifting one's self up by throwing another down). I believe a 'static monarchy' is needed as a political center point (mainly being the brightest of this nation that collaborate to find the best situation for the needs of the people), but I also believe that these people should have little to know actual command in power (although, it will seem as if they do from my next statement).

I believe these bright (smart) people are there for is advisement, simply putting the correlation of the 'butterfly effect' of possible changes in the state. Leaving the inevitable choice to the people (keep in mind that this is not our humanities state of mind, but the choices based on logical statistic).

It may seem that these people have a large amount of power, and in essence they truly do; however, this 'kind' of power is very easily lost (a single mistake within their calculations would throw off the entire equation, thereby losing their power, the trust of the people).

This society is very volatile at least in our definition of society, because we cannot act without emotional conflict (self want). Not to say that these Espers are any better, they just have a more 'logical' scale than a 'emotional.'

There does need to be counter arguments, organizations, and a multitude of media coverage stations (as information is key to this society, as consistent growth is for capitalism).

On a side not of global warming, it is true that following the set standards for such a lifestyle is costly I believe there are more contributing facts than plain money. For instance there is the essence of time (in which we govern ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING off of). Will we see the helpful changes of our efforts within our life time if we participate? Probably not, if we as humans cannot see a result we by nature will reject it (we after all, are a completely stimulus race). Another might be interest (again stimulus race), we cannot be seen watching facts about Iraq, because we are too busy finishing up the last level of a video game or talking to a friend about a comedy act. Without proper incentive there is absolutely no way we are gong to do something that will not benefit us (either we fool ourselves in thinking it is selfless or not, because we still get gratification out of it).

I don't know if that would be considered a very 'poor' view of the human race, but it's apparently what I thought of while writing it. What do you think of my idea's about this 'fiction' society (within a semi-realistic manner) and my idea's about man kind?

I'm for a more centric view Voxx. We're all human and we all try to be decent is my assumption. But then you have those that have found that 'they can do it and get away with it', or turned around. You ask a mass murderer why he kills, and the answer is 'i like it.' And per definition he has gotten away with it, for quite some time. 'Because I can' is valid for us all, we can all do stuff but most of us will not. In a way it is the same as we all have imagination, and thinking some more of that, I doubt people are prepared to discuss their most intimate imaginations, with anyone, normally. does this make us 'sick'? Nope, but it make us human, imagination leads to empathy, but sometimes, mostly when you have no real definition of yourself, I presume it to lead to insanity. Then we have those that are what I would call evil. Those people do understand the concept of empathy, they know how a society prefer to treat each other, but, because 'they can' and because we all are egoists on some level, they choose to do things sane people won't. 'I can, therefore I will' is a very seductive promise, and it will make you special, in your own mind. Doesn't really matter what moral one puts on it. But you have to remember that a majority of us already know the difference between imagination and reality, also that most of us have some compassion and empathy, and react from it. Ever read Elias Canetti? Think it's called 'crowds and people' or something similar. It's a good book, discussing humans.

Background of the social class: This society is comprised of Espers, within my universe they are the most intellectual race. Having esp like abilities, (read some of my earlier posts to get a feel for them if you would like) they base most of their decisions on logic, therefore I want a unanimous symbiotic relation within their community.

This society needs:

A complete social equality in voting, speaking, and finance.

All residents may have differing difficulty of jobs, but in essence get paid the same (depending on skill set and necessity).

Biokinetic's(Espers that have the ability to manipulate cellular activity in all biological aspects) act as a hospital, which in essence causes no disease.

Energy is clean and sustained.

A select group of extremely intelligent espers go through mass political petitions that govern laws within a logical fair manner. (Mainly enforced by a specific individual that is completely devoted to duty).

Justice is given out within a logical methodical manner where the death penalty is given to anyone who is in enforcement of destroying their specific laws.

Utopian-like, conflict free societies would seem to depend on all the members being very similar and having the same vested interests. And when the group benefits, the individual always does as well. One individual does not benefit at another's expense. I don't know how one would ever create these conditions.

Some questions:As far as complete social equality goes, how would this work? Is it majority rule? Is this any way to prevent the majority from imposing their will on individuals or a minority of individuals?

You mention logic a lot. But as the famous quote goes, "Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance." People may disagree for reasons other than self interest or even ignorance of facts. Despite logical analysis, people attribute different value to different outcomes, and also have more or less aversion to risk. How would these conflicts be resolved?

Although there is a long tradition of viewing "emotional" brain processes as being essentially primitive, selfish, impulsive, and irrational, I see more and more neurological and sociology research that suggests this isn't really the case. Both logical and emotional parts of the brain, if they can even still be described that way, need to be functional in order for people to make ethical decisions.

Very inspirational responses Cheryl J and Yor_on! I will start with Yor_on's comments.

=============Intended for Yor_on=============

An understandable field of view. The first thing that popped into my head was, "With the advancement of human kind and the evolution of our knowledge bases, we have progressed our perception's into a more vast region (at least those who seek after the knowledge we have worked our blood, sweat, and tears for).

Human kind views things accordingly with their societies principles as that is what we have been taught. There will always of course be social deviants, in accordance with the in-acceptable ('Because I can'); because these individuals seemingly have no control over their respective environment they choose to act out against it to feel what they have been deprived of (this is an emotional response).

The word 'empathy' has a very subjective terminology as it can be re-written dependent on perspective (although, that can be said with anything that cannot be scientifically quantified). I believe hearing somewhere that most 'psychopathic tenancies' are results of the loss in superego (the portion of one's brain that governs precautionary response; or maybe i'm getting the wording mixed up with this statement?).

With the insanity statement...I honestly don't know what to think about loss of one's personal definition. I believe that it doesn't in sense cause insanity, but maybe severe depression leading to suicide; maybe a numb feeling of unknowing that breaks down mental walls that change principles drastically. I, however, believe that this is seldom involved instantaneously without some kind of huge trauma.

I also believe the world is more gray in a sense that your perception is your reality. There is no such thing as evil, as we depict what the definition is dependent upon our values and the same goes for good.

===============Directed towards Cheryl===============

Being able to create those idealisms is a very daunting task to undergo and in all percivable ways seems very fleeing, however, I am trying to think of safeguards around that. A very dismal task .

Question's:

1) True equality in my sense does not mean according to want, but need (unlike the trail of thought to most our fellow Americans in this marginal-productivity theory Capitalist nation). Yes, a mass of people, say 100 million voters and out of that 100 million will actually vote (not like it is in america where due to schedule or motivation we fail to do so). All applicants have access directly where they are at to vote and scan dialogue if needed.

2) In this (my world) story, my people may have differing ideas to get to the same goal, but there is a consensus vote that is made within a mass unanimous scale that is accomplished by taking every question on the bill or statement and combining like thoughts into the questions/alternatives. These selections are then complied into a top majority and placed on sheets of revision and discuss boards on ratification. Anything you want to add or disclaim?

3) I completely understand where you are coming from with this and I also disagree that pure logic is the best solution, take Phineas Gage for example. He lost a portion of his brain to take into account emotional conception; due to this he should have been the prime example of success correct? Wrong; he went on to live a completely miserable life, while racking up debt and making completely wrong, but still logical decisions (at least to him, as logic is in essence subjective to perspective). Understand where I'm coming from? A true controllable medium?

1) True equality in my sense does not mean according to want, but need ...

2) In this (my world) story, my people may have differing ideas to get to the same goal, but there is a consensus vote that is made within a mass unanimous scale...3) I completely understand where you are from with this and I also disagree that pure logic is the best solution...

The designers of the US Constitution were afraid of tyrants, but they also feared the tyranny of the majority and at least attempted to include safe guards against this, such as the Bill of Rights.The Constitution is not impossible to change, but cannot be easily and impulsively changed. In terms of individual rights and freedom, the tyranny of the majority can be problematic whether it an angry, emotional mob, or a large numbers of people who believe their decisions are based on facts and reason.

There is a philosophical question, usually involving a oncoming speeding train that can be redirected to another track by flipping a switch. The question is, would you sacrifice the life of one innocent person to save five people. Almost everyone says yes, they would. People tend to agree on questions like that as long as it is very black and white. But you start getting different answers if you change it a bit, as in "Would you sacrifice one person to greatly relieve the suffering of others, or would you sacrifice one person to enhance the quality of life and comfort of millions of people?" This is essentially the kind of question that comes up in debates on everything from public safety, health care, or the distribution of a limited resource.

The concept of "need" can be almost as subjective as the concept of wants or desires. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think it's impossible to circumvent the question of value with reason alone. How important or necessary is an object or outcome? How "good" is it? How good is it compared to something else, if you had to choose? How intolerable is a possible negative outcome, and would it be worse than another kind of negative outcome? How does risk affect your decision? Are you willing to spend time or money on something that has a significant chance of failure but could have a huge pay off, or do you like a sure thing? Even if everyone is thinking of good of the entire group, would people reach the same conclusions or different ones? Earlier you said you wanted a form of government based on scientific principles, but I'm not sure science can answer questions of value.

What I do like about your ideas is using technology to improve democracy. It would be interesting to know how most people would have voted on a bill or issue if they had been allowed to, if their vote would have been they same as the their political representative's. I think this might be a huge indicator of what decisions are being determined by corporate interests.

PS. There is an area of mathematics you might find interesting and useful if you continue to work on this. It's called Game Theory. Bored mathematicians started studying games, mainly to become better poker players, but quickly realized the principles seem to explain things in economics, politics, war, finance, and even evolutionary biology. If you remember the Movie "A Beautiful Mind" about mathematician John Nash, Nash developed something called the Nash Equilibrium that tries to determine the best possible strategy and/or outcome in a game for all players, which in a way is something similar to what you are trying to do.

1) I completely understand where you are coming from (although, be it now in a more direct manner). I can see how the mass illusion of a seemingly logical consensual arguments can blind one's self (which is why the scitentific method was created as a 'safe guard' against such pseudo logic).

I was thinking about this and do need a set of individuals that do not hold any power in state, but in trust. Trust is a very fickle thing that can be turned at a moments notice. There needs to be a person who has the best interests of their people at heart (truly hard to find someone completely devoted to that duty, impossible in our world). That being said, this individual is not at all concerned with outside world issues. If it benefits their own people in a positive way, then it is the right course of action (note that these Espers are highly logical and take into account long term effects consistently without fail).

The big portion of my book is that this nation pisses off almost the entire world (because of a representatives interaction's with two separate groups, as she pays back two favors that helped her build this society out of duty for her people). A large portion of it is dedicated to her own nation's waver in trust, which is something she will need to overcome with these nations coming after these people that are under her protection. When you represent a nation you do not have a personal life or personal duties, you are seen as the nation and act as such (at least if you are bound mind, body, and soul, to your duty).

2) On the game's theory; yes, I have already created such a game inside my book for these Espers. They are after all a very logical race and contrary to what most people believe we as humans cannot truly multitask like windows systems. Our brain merely halts process in micro second delays to complete the next task. These Espers however can multitask in every definition; can you see how bored a being like this might get if not being constantly stimulated (like us humans, but much greater). They need to be doing something productive, it is ingrained in their nature.

Therefore, I created this mass populous game (in book) that represents a MMO-RTS game. This game, however, is much more in-depth than any game we have created. A complete government that is set upon world domination (hundreds of thousands of kingdoms) a set number of resources dependent on how many players are playing on a consistent bases (they are usually playing most the time as they can multitask situations).

I also think that there might be need of a variety, its true that beings that focus on logic will like logical/intellectual games, but maybe not a war like game. People may like card games of chance with a multitude of decks incorporated to work the challenge in counting fifteen plus decks of cards.

The pivital moment in this book is when this absolutely brilliant strategic individual makes a miscalculation (for the first time with most the facts at her disposal) and causes a tragic emotional trigger in her (usually emotionless self). A true turning point within the book, what do you think about my long/random explanations listed above? [xx(]

You know Voxx, a lot of those questions and answers are wrong form my personal perspective. The societies where you meet life and death decisions on a daily basis is mostly the society where you don't want to live. I can give you a logical construction in where you have to choose between two awful things and you will be forced to choose one, sure. But that society stinks, so when you meet people defining such you also meet people accepting that 'this is the way it is' which actually is wrong. Because we're constantly trying to get away from those kind of society's. Take a look at history and what was considered 'fun' for three hundred years ago and how we do it today. I agree on that it is education that will change a individual perspective, the better and more humane it is, the greater your chances to make something good of yourself. And Cheryl, don't get stuck on logic, we do have empathy and compassion, one to one we have. Logic can be used for all sorts of things. It can create a environment where we kill each other, or it can create a environment where we care for each other. That depends on what you think, and your values.

Remember that we don't normally give each other choices that both leads to personal disaster. But people falling for the 'beauty' of some logic will, also called 'fanatics' by those not sharing it. So getting impressed by those is futile, I'm not.=

The point I'm hammering in is that it doesn't matter how you construct that choice, or what you call it. It's still wrong. You can get into such a situation, but listening to some logic a year before won't solve it for you then and there. Your values will though.. And after you have done it you either will be ashamed or 'released', or won't care. People meeting that kind of logic may believe it make them 'better persons', and 'prepared', but I don't agree. It just make them susceptible to people telling them 'this is how it is', which is a bad thing in my book.

As for the book it sounds cool Voxx. You do it from your mind and create a plausible reality, then your readers will react on it, some will accept it, others will question it, but it will make them think in both cases.==

Very informative Yor_on...although; what is values, except what you have learned is socially deviant through an educational (view point of others) influence on you? Most all of us when thinking of a values system revert back to the 10 commandments of the bible, which is still a social influence; not a creation of our own, but an adaption of the values of the past.

There are cultures that have never even heard of the bible yes, but the only true cultural simile is the unanimous refrain from Insest.

It is true that interests change over time as technology is continually advancing and more inthings are socially seen.

What creates norms? In my opinion it is truly social environment. For example, you have the average American that lives on a 30k a year income. Their neighbor lives on a 35k a year income and seems to live a much better life than you. Now say 50 years ago, you would look over and see him and want to live that slightly better life. However; now with the publication of T.V. (like Rome) not only is used to publicize a sense of entertainment with violence (not all of course, but how many movies are there without violence that you enjoy. 'real/fantasy?' These families do not judge 'happiness' or 'success' by their neighbors anymore, but fantasy storylines.) How often now days do you see a very well off family with a single working parent that actively communes in his environment, seemingly has little to no stress and lives happily? Very unrealistic, but still seen as a standard of the social middle class?

Now for the statement on life or death situations; isn't that what every government goes through, it is just that ours chooses to hide these actions in discrete methodology. Logic isn't in essence evil or wrong, but perceived within the 'evil mind'.

What is 'reality'? Reality is simply perception; to a person with schizophrenia, that is their reality.What is a game? Something that you 'perceive' to have unrealistic consequences; unless the 'game' is bridged with reality, in which it transcends into the word 'war'.

'There is opposition in everything; it is, however, our choice on how to respond to it.' This statement, however, is defined and guided by our perceptions (ethics).

Values will be what you interpret later as the reason to your reactions, and actions :)And if you ask your brother he might have a different opinion :)

It's just about whom one is, one might jump down that railroad track to save someone from a train or one may not. Both will tell one something about ones values. Those are the reactions that come without conscious consideration as I see it, and they are very informative.==

Or at least leave you only a short moment of consideration before all is lost, as I see it. Sometimes one have to force oneself to do it too,, I'm sure we all had those moments when we just have to act, but that doesn't make it less.

And yes, I agree. Stress is not good for anyone. And comparing once life to what one see in 'rich and famous' wanting to have it all, sounds rather unhealthy to me. But I'm sure there are communities in US of A that's more 'laid back' than that?

To me reality is hard to define, it's what one live I presume. But if you use physics a lot of things becomes questionable.But I was thinking of your book, you have a golden opportunity there :) Just use that imagination.

Values will be what you interpret later as the reason to your reactions, and actions :)And if you ask your brother he might have a different opinion :)

It's just about whom one is, one might jump down that railroad track to save someone from a train or one may not. Both will tell one something about ones values. Those are the reactions that come without conscious consideration as I see it, and they are very informative.==

Or at least leave you only a short moment of consideration before all is lost, as I see it. Sometimes one have to force oneself to do it too,, I'm sure we all had those moments when we just have to act, but that doesn't make it less.

Quite true; It is what you give ethological credence to what propels your motives...I think I got my wording a bit mixed up above. :( You've been very helpful Yor_on and I didn't want this to turn into a metaphysical debate on unquantifiable variables like it seems I am turning this into (my bad).

It is true that if I want this book to be at all realistic I do need to set some firm foundations and that is what I am trying to find. I realize now that not 'everyone' will vote, even if they have ease of access (I have a few start-ups that I have yet to block from auto starting and it would take a simple 2 min to accomplish; instead every time I start up my computer I Ctrl, alt, delete, and end their processes)._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What would you call a society that has the following applications to bring this thread to an end?

A society that everything is freely given

There are no jobless positions, as the society is continually growing and needs more people (for new births and education)

Ruled through majority

Has a set of highly educated people who do not control what is proposed or not, but merely posts personal comments on ratification's to the people's ideas (these people have their position because of trust and can have it taken away at any time; maybe in reference to an adviser)

The society is focused on technological advancement, but not cybernetics/prosthetic (as they are a genetically evolutionist theorists), they simply use technology to aid in scientific discovery and progression.

Due to the nature of this publicized information, there has to be at least a mass news network that showcases all latest discoveries.

Law is decided by a mass populous, including trials (which are very rare, due to the progressive nature of the society) there will be of course deviants and their sentence will be decided by the majority.

List of wondering thoughts I have at the moment:

If a law was placed and a crime is committed, should the mass decide to revoke that law, does that law still apply to the criminal? If not then doesn't that completely negate the purpose of a law? My question being, "At the start of this nation, should there be a law in place that binds the people to their previous decision or (since it is a logical consensus of people) should it depend on circumstance?

Should there only be one news network, or multiple networks that are fundamentally divided by ethical value of principles for diversity or divided to apply a less likelihood of biasism?

Don't know if you remember that American soldier that threw himself on a grenade to protect his fellows at some outpost? That wasn't about training, not as I see it. That was about core values, even though I'm sure the military consider it part of their tradition. But those values had to come from who he was, how he had been treated by others, and also from what he wanted to think about himself. We have another example from Nazi Germany where one guy refused to shot civilian prisoners. It ended with him joining their line, to be shot with them. Also about values, and to me they come from within, from who you are, as well as who you want to be. We're all humans and we all fail at times, but having values will make you a individual, not happy at all times though :) Or a 'real human' as I heard someone call it in India once.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.